Jump to content
UNRV Ancient Roman Empire Forums

Jesus as a Roman soldier/emperor


Gordopolis

Recommended Posts

It's not news, but I just wanted to share this fascinating depiction of Jesus Christ from the Archiepiscopal Chapel in Ravenna, Italy. He is portrayed as beardless, dressed as a Roman soldier (or possibly emperor, given the purple cloak), and trampling a lion and an adder.
It is the Roman armour that intrigues me most of all. Ironically, the mosaic dates from around AD 500, a time when the Western Roman Empire had disintegrated, and Ravenna was part of the Ostrogothic Kingdom of Italy. Then again, the Ostrogoths by that period were most probably very Roman in appearance.
 
I love how vastly different this depiction is from what came to be the norm. And something is also bugging me: I'm *certain* that there were other, possibly even earlier, Christ images that showed him as a young man (slightly androgynous) with short blonde hair and again no beard. It was wither in a Mary beard or Bettany Hughes program or book. Can't find said image on the web for love nor money. Anyone else know what I'm talking about?
 

Christ 1.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Novosedoff said:

I wonder what adder and lion are supposed to mean... 

Does anybody read Latin to translate that bit from the book Jesus holds?

Supposed to represent the devil!

The inscription on the book Jesus is holding reads from John 14.6: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life". From Psalm 91 we read - "Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder: the young lion and the dragon shalt thou trample under feet."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6).

The quotation seems to emphasize the intolerance as if other religions (Islam etc) were misleading and Christianity was dominant

Although Islam has such things too (eg hadith 1.24)

https://islamichouse.tripod.com/hadith/bukhari/vol1/bvol1-21-30.htm 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Novosedoff said:

The quotation seems to emphasize the intolerance as if other religions (Islam etc) were misleading and Christianity was dominant

Although Islam has such things too (eg hadith 1.24)

https://islamichouse.tripod.com/hadith/bukhari/vol1/bvol1-21-30.htm 

The way I interpret that quote (and the Abrahamic religions in general) is that they are all talking about the same "Father", though each professes different versions of the "right" way to worship him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Gordopolis said:

The way I interpret that quote (and the Abrahamic religions in general) is that they are all talking about the same "Father", though each professes different versions of the "right" way to worship him.

If the father was always the same, there would have been no Mt 10:34-35 😅

Edited by Novosedoff
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gordopolis said:

You'll need to elaborate (you obviously study scripture more closely than me!)

Well, it all seems to be straightforward ..

Quote

34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn

“‘a man against his father,
    a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
36     a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’[c]

37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 

Jesus doesn't look like a peaceful shepherd when he is delivering a hateful speech like that, does he? 🙂  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Novosedoff said:

Well, it all seems to be straightforward ..

Jesus doesn't look like a peaceful shepherd when he is delivering a hateful speech like that, does he? 🙂  

Interesting, thanks.
I'd assume there is a contextual message that is lost with that excerpt in isolation, but I really don't know. However, I've read some pretty uncomfortable stuff in all the scriptures to be honest, so it wouldn't surprise me if it was meant literally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus isn't real and never was. The earliest known and accepted Christian writings don't mention any real world context, that was invented later as a sales technique for want of a better description. Jesus evolved from an archangel in Hebrew myth who passed the test that Satan failed, and was an ethnic version of the Egyptian Osiris, though the concept of a death and resurrection is a fascinatingly common concept in such ancient religions.

The Hippy Jesus is medieval. In Roman times Jesus was depicted as all sorts of things because cults were trying to portray him as something real and recognisable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, caldrail said:

Jesus isn't real and never was. The earliest known and accepted Christian writings don't mention any real world context, that was invented later as a sales technique for want of a better description. Jesus evolved from an archangel in Hebrew myth who passed the test that Satan failed, and was an ethnic version of the Egyptian Osiris, though the concept of a death and resurrection is a fascinatingly common concept in such ancient religions.

The Hippy Jesus is medieval. In Roman times Jesus was depicted as all sorts of things because cults were trying to portray him as something real and recognisable.

Hippy Jesus began to emerge in the 4th c AD. 

I do find these alternative depictions very interesting - they are in some ways a mirror held up to the creators, reflecting self-image, culture, values and often agendas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd agree with Caldrail and Dr. Dawkins that Jesus we know from the Bible is a fictional type of character, which emerged as a product of syncretism of ancient cults. There could have been though one or a few real historical characters who eventually merged into what appeared to be the biblical Jesus. The Roman influence in writing the biblical story and shaping the literary character of Jesus is undisputed, and we've been touching this on the forum: https://www.unrv.com/forum/topic/19364-praetorian-guard-praefects/?tab=comments#comment-132380

Romans clearly tried to mollify the flock by portraying Jesus as a peaceful preacher. The real Jesus could have been more like the rebellious Jewish gangster Judas of Galilee who started the "4th philosophy" (terrorism) and was eventually killed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judas_of_Galilee

In fact, some sources even claim that real Jesus shared the common lineage with Judas of Galilee.

Anyone who tried to delve into the biblical story thoughtfully must have found a number of inconsistencies in it. I've been collecting them for years by reading what other researchers shared in their publications.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...